It's (finally) time for reparations. It's time for the US to pay its debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think they should get in reparations? How "black" does one need to be to get reparations? If I have a great great grandparent that was black, does that mean I get reparations even if I have a Chinese grandparent and three seemingly white other grandparents? Are we going to genetically test people?

She addresses eligibility in her essay.

Perhaps you can share that information then because doing a find on “eligibility” turns up nothing. Again, how much MONEY do you want?

Perhaps you can read it.

It’s a freaking manifesto that’s way TLDR.

It’s filled with great points and data that everyone should read.

But I think that reparations paid to people who are not the ones who were injured is morally and ethically wrong. She doesn't convince me that it is the moral thing to do.

There are social and utilitarian reasons to help black Americans including by such efforts as affirmative action (which has varied over the decades) and preferential hiring as well as the programs for all Americans including public education, welfare, Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security, etc. But targeted reparations to people who were harmed by slavery/the failure of Reconstruction/Jim Crow/redlining/racial discrimination is a mushy concept that is problematic for many reasons, practical (which can be overcome) and ethical.

I disagree with her premise.

Black people in the US today ARE harmed all of the various forms of white supremacy over the past 400 years - from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining to systemic racism.

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

“Things” started 400 years ago and continue today. White supremacy has evolved over time but has always existed in various ways that harm black people. Even today.

Lot's of "things" started 400 or more years ago and continue today. Four hundred years ago, my ancestors were living in ghettos and forbidden to own property. Where is my reparation? Also 400 years ago, West Africans sold their fellow West Africans into slavery. So do you now collect from West African nations? Or, since black lives here are generally better than there, do you pay them? The wealth of every American today derived from land origonally owned by Indians. After we pay blacks for slavery, do we all give our land back to the Indians?

I could go on and on. I know a lot about history. I love to study it. It's mostly a story of misery, conflict and cruel mistakes. You'd be surprised what sort of things still have an effect today. It's good to learn about these things. But we can't make up for one single second of past misery. We can only fix the present.

If you know history, you should know that Native Americans believed that land owns man and not the other way around.

That doesn't mean they wanted to be forcibly moved, then or now.

How do you give land to a group of people that don't believe in land ownership? I'm sure a modern Native American would take it but the reason they were relocated was because their ancestors didn't lay claim to any ownership of the land they were living on.

Right, so because they didn't even believe in land ownership, that gave us a right to lay claim to their villages and hunting grounds, shoot them, push them ever westward, break treaties with them, and force them onto reservations where they rot in perpetual poverty.

But Oprah still deserves a cash payment, a free house or whatever.

Don't you see the ethical problem in trying to fix present problems using past claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

That's a good point. Are we trying to remedy current problems or are we trying to atone for past wrongdoing? I mean, you can say "both," but at some point the remedy for current problems might be at odds with atoning for past wrongdoing -- you'll have to know whether which priority to favor in that situation.

I don't think we can do anything about the past at all. We can fix residual harms, but that's all about the present.

So you are stuck on language?

If we call it "fixing residual harms" and "eliminating the wealth gap" does that work for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

That's a good point. Are we trying to remedy current problems or are we trying to atone for past wrongdoing? I mean, you can say "both," but at some point the remedy for current problems might be at odds with atoning for past wrongdoing -- you'll have to know whether which priority to favor in that situation.

The sins of the past and the sins of the present have resulted in a significant wealth gap. How would correcting that be at odds with anything?

Of course those two aims can conflict. Even in the hypothetical person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents. Is that person in or out, and why?

How about we limit it to people who are currently dealing with the brunt of 400 years of white supremacy in the US? "residual harm"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

That's a good point. Are we trying to remedy current problems or are we trying to atone for past wrongdoing? I mean, you can say "both," but at some point the remedy for current problems might be at odds with atoning for past wrongdoing -- you'll have to know whether which priority to favor in that situation.

The sins of the past and the sins of the present have resulted in a significant wealth gap. How would correcting that be at odds with anything?

Of course those two aims can conflict. Even in the hypothetical person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents. Is that person in or out, and why?

How about we limit it to people who are currently dealing with the brunt of 400 years of white supremacy in the US? "residual harm"

So no reparations for UMC black people.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think they should get in reparations? How "black" does one need to be to get reparations? If I have a great great grandparent that was black, does that mean I get reparations even if I have a Chinese grandparent and three seemingly white other grandparents? Are we going to genetically test people?

She addresses eligibility in her essay.

Not very well.

She’s pretty clear. Do you disagree with her on eligibility?

I don't think she's very clear. But since you thought she was clear, how would you answer PP's question: How much in reparations would a person with a great, great grandparent who was black, a Chinese grandparent, and three seemingly white other grandparents expect to receive?

It was pretty clear.

Do this person identify as black?

They will if you start offering cash to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Health outcomes have declined for black people since the 1960s. There are theories why that is true today but no one is considering why health outcomes were better for black people in the 50s than today. This author is also not considering it.

Redlining made it more difficult to receive health care, find healthy food options, etc.

Additional current harm.

Incorrect. You need to read up on this.

Why do you think health outcomes declined? Please share your sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/magazine/black-mothers-babies-death-maternal-mortality.html

So....systemic racism?

For black women in America, an inescapable atmosphere of societal and systemic racism can create a kind of toxic physiological stress, resulting in conditions — including hypertension and pre-eclampsia — that lead directly to higher rates of infant and maternal death. And that societal racism is further expressed in a pervasive, longstanding racial bias in health care — including the dismissal of legitimate concerns and symptoms — that can help explain poor birth outcomes even in the case of black women with the most advantages.

It's more nuanced than that. Read the entire article, it's very long.

I did read the whole thing.

"There is something structural and much deeper going on in the health system that then expresses itself in poor outcomes and sometimes deaths."


It all goes back to system racism.

Why do you think health outcomes declined?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think they should get in reparations? How "black" does one need to be to get reparations? If I have a great great grandparent that was black, does that mean I get reparations even if I have a Chinese grandparent and three seemingly white other grandparents? Are we going to genetically test people?

She addresses eligibility in her essay.

Not very well.

She’s pretty clear. Do you disagree with her on eligibility?

I don't think she's very clear. But since you thought she was clear, how would you answer PP's question: How much in reparations would a person with a great, great grandparent who was black, a Chinese grandparent, and three seemingly white other grandparents expect to receive?

It was pretty clear.

Do this person identify as black?

They will if you start offering cash to do so.

Can they document that they've identified as black for the past 10 years?

You don't think she was clear because you didn't even bother to read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Health outcomes have declined for black people since the 1960s. There are theories why that is true today but no one is considering why health outcomes were better for black people in the 50s than today. This author is also not considering it.

Redlining made it more difficult to receive health care, find healthy food options, etc.

Additional current harm.

Incorrect. You need to read up on this.

Why do you think health outcomes declined? Please share your sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/magazine/black-mothers-babies-death-maternal-mortality.html

So....systemic racism?

For black women in America, an inescapable atmosphere of societal and systemic racism can create a kind of toxic physiological stress, resulting in conditions — including hypertension and pre-eclampsia — that lead directly to higher rates of infant and maternal death. And that societal racism is further expressed in a pervasive, longstanding racial bias in health care — including the dismissal of legitimate concerns and symptoms — that can help explain poor birth outcomes even in the case of black women with the most advantages.

It's more nuanced than that. Read the entire article, it's very long.

I did read the whole thing.

"There is something structural and much deeper going on in the health system that then expresses itself in poor outcomes and sometimes deaths."


It all goes back to system racism.

Why do you think health outcomes declined?

Keep thinking. What changed about racism in the 60s and 70s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

That's a good point. Are we trying to remedy current problems or are we trying to atone for past wrongdoing? I mean, you can say "both," but at some point the remedy for current problems might be at odds with atoning for past wrongdoing -- you'll have to know whether which priority to favor in that situation.

The sins of the past and the sins of the present have resulted in a significant wealth gap. How would correcting that be at odds with anything?

Of course those two aims can conflict. Even in the hypothetical person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents. Is that person in or out, and why?

How about we limit it to people who are currently dealing with the brunt of 400 years of white supremacy in the US? "residual harm"

So no reparations for UMC black people.

Got it.

Why would you exclude them? You don't you think they are currently dealing with systemic racism today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Health outcomes have declined for black people since the 1960s. There are theories why that is true today but no one is considering why health outcomes were better for black people in the 50s than today. This author is also not considering it.

Redlining made it more difficult to receive health care, find healthy food options, etc.

Additional current harm.

Incorrect. You need to read up on this.

Why do you think health outcomes declined? Please share your sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/magazine/black-mothers-babies-death-maternal-mortality.html

So....systemic racism?

For black women in America, an inescapable atmosphere of societal and systemic racism can create a kind of toxic physiological stress, resulting in conditions — including hypertension and pre-eclampsia — that lead directly to higher rates of infant and maternal death. And that societal racism is further expressed in a pervasive, longstanding racial bias in health care — including the dismissal of legitimate concerns and symptoms — that can help explain poor birth outcomes even in the case of black women with the most advantages.

It's more nuanced than that. Read the entire article, it's very long.

I did read the whole thing.

"There is something structural and much deeper going on in the health system that then expresses itself in poor outcomes and sometimes deaths."


It all goes back to system racism.

Why do you think health outcomes declined?

Keep thinking. What changed about racism in the 60s and 70s?

If you have a point to make that ties back to the topic, go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think they should get in reparations? How "black" does one need to be to get reparations? If I have a great great grandparent that was black, does that mean I get reparations even if I have a Chinese grandparent and three seemingly white other grandparents? Are we going to genetically test people?

She addresses eligibility in her essay.

Perhaps you can share that information then because doing a find on “eligibility” turns up nothing. Again, how much MONEY do you want?

Perhaps you can read it.

It’s a freaking manifesto that’s way TLDR.

It’s filled with great points and data that everyone should read.

But I think that reparations paid to people who are not the ones who were injured is morally and ethically wrong. She doesn't convince me that it is the moral thing to do.

There are social and utilitarian reasons to help black Americans including by such efforts as affirmative action (which has varied over the decades) and preferential hiring as well as the programs for all Americans including public education, welfare, Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security, etc. But targeted reparations to people who were harmed by slavery/the failure of Reconstruction/Jim Crow/redlining/racial discrimination is a mushy concept that is problematic for many reasons, practical (which can be overcome) and ethical.

I disagree with her premise.

Black people in the US today ARE harmed all of the various forms of white supremacy over the past 400 years - from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining to systemic racism.

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

“Things” started 400 years ago and continue today. White supremacy has evolved over time but has always existed in various ways that harm black people. Even today.

Lot's of "things" started 400 or more years ago and continue today. Four hundred years ago, my ancestors were living in ghettos and forbidden to own property. Where is my reparation? Also 400 years ago, West Africans sold their fellow West Africans into slavery. So do you now collect from West African nations? Or, since black lives here are generally better than there, do you pay them? The wealth of every American today derived from land origonally owned by Indians. After we pay blacks for slavery, do we all give our land back to the Indians?

I could go on and on. I know a lot about history. I love to study it. It's mostly a story of misery, conflict and cruel mistakes. You'd be surprised what sort of things still have an effect today. It's good to learn about these things. But we can't make up for one single second of past misery. We can only fix the present.

If you know history, you should know that Native Americans believed that land owns man and not the other way around.

That doesn't mean they wanted to be forcibly moved, then or now.

How do you give land to a group of people that don't believe in land ownership? I'm sure a modern Native American would take it but the reason they were relocated was because their ancestors didn't lay claim to any ownership of the land they were living on.

Are you serious?

Oh sorry. I thought you indicated that you studied history.

Relocating people from where they live is done because of greater power, not because "they don't believe in land ownership". That's disingenuous.

The colonists and Europeans in general believed in land ownership. The Native Americans were nomadic in nature and didn't believe man could own land. Native Americans migrated and the colonists moved in. No backsies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

That's a good point. Are we trying to remedy current problems or are we trying to atone for past wrongdoing? I mean, you can say "both," but at some point the remedy for current problems might be at odds with atoning for past wrongdoing -- you'll have to know whether which priority to favor in that situation.

The sins of the past and the sins of the present have resulted in a significant wealth gap. How would correcting that be at odds with anything?

Of course those two aims can conflict. Even in the hypothetical person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents. Is that person in or out, and why?

How about we limit it to people who are currently dealing with the brunt of 400 years of white supremacy in the US? "residual harm"

So no reparations for UMC black people.

Got it.

Why would you exclude them? You don't you think they are currently dealing with systemic racism today?

Wealth gap and residual harm. Both? One or the other? Which is more important, which is more addressable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think they should get in reparations? How "black" does one need to be to get reparations? If I have a great great grandparent that was black, does that mean I get reparations even if I have a Chinese grandparent and three seemingly white other grandparents? Are we going to genetically test people?

She addresses eligibility in her essay.

Perhaps you can share that information then because doing a find on “eligibility” turns up nothing. Again, how much MONEY do you want?

Perhaps you can read it.

It’s a freaking manifesto that’s way TLDR.

It’s filled with great points and data that everyone should read.

But I think that reparations paid to people who are not the ones who were injured is morally and ethically wrong. She doesn't convince me that it is the moral thing to do.

There are social and utilitarian reasons to help black Americans including by such efforts as affirmative action (which has varied over the decades) and preferential hiring as well as the programs for all Americans including public education, welfare, Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security, etc. But targeted reparations to people who were harmed by slavery/the failure of Reconstruction/Jim Crow/redlining/racial discrimination is a mushy concept that is problematic for many reasons, practical (which can be overcome) and ethical.

I disagree with her premise.

Black people in the US today ARE harmed all of the various forms of white supremacy over the past 400 years - from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining to systemic racism.

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

“Things” started 400 years ago and continue today. White supremacy has evolved over time but has always existed in various ways that harm black people. Even today.

Lot's of "things" started 400 or more years ago and continue today. Four hundred years ago, my ancestors were living in ghettos and forbidden to own property. Where is my reparation? Also 400 years ago, West Africans sold their fellow West Africans into slavery. So do you now collect from West African nations? Or, since black lives here are generally better than there, do you pay them? The wealth of every American today derived from land origonally owned by Indians. After we pay blacks for slavery, do we all give our land back to the Indians?

I could go on and on. I know a lot about history. I love to study it. It's mostly a story of misery, conflict and cruel mistakes. You'd be surprised what sort of things still have an effect today. It's good to learn about these things. But we can't make up for one single second of past misery. We can only fix the present.

If you know history, you should know that Native Americans believed that land owns man and not the other way around.

That doesn't mean they wanted to be forcibly moved, then or now.

How do you give land to a group of people that don't believe in land ownership? I'm sure a modern Native American would take it but the reason they were relocated was because their ancestors didn't lay claim to any ownership of the land they were living on.

Right, so because they didn't even believe in land ownership, that gave us a right to lay claim to their villages and hunting grounds, shoot them, push them ever westward, break treaties with them, and force them onto reservations where they rot in perpetual poverty.

But Oprah still deserves a cash payment, a free house or whatever.

Don't you see the ethical problem in trying to fix present problems using past claims?

But the past sins have "residual harm" that manifest as present problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much do people think they should get in reparations? How "black" does one need to be to get reparations? If I have a great great grandparent that was black, does that mean I get reparations even if I have a Chinese grandparent and three seemingly white other grandparents? Are we going to genetically test people?

She addresses eligibility in her essay.

Perhaps you can share that information then because doing a find on “eligibility” turns up nothing. Again, how much MONEY do you want?

Perhaps you can read it.

It’s a freaking manifesto that’s way TLDR.

It’s filled with great points and data that everyone should read.

But I think that reparations paid to people who are not the ones who were injured is morally and ethically wrong. She doesn't convince me that it is the moral thing to do.

There are social and utilitarian reasons to help black Americans including by such efforts as affirmative action (which has varied over the decades) and preferential hiring as well as the programs for all Americans including public education, welfare, Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security, etc. But targeted reparations to people who were harmed by slavery/the failure of Reconstruction/Jim Crow/redlining/racial discrimination is a mushy concept that is problematic for many reasons, practical (which can be overcome) and ethical.

I disagree with her premise.

Black people in the US today ARE harmed all of the various forms of white supremacy over the past 400 years - from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining to systemic racism.

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

“Things” started 400 years ago and continue today. White supremacy has evolved over time but has always existed in various ways that harm black people. Even today.

Lot's of "things" started 400 or more years ago and continue today. Four hundred years ago, my ancestors were living in ghettos and forbidden to own property. Where is my reparation? Also 400 years ago, West Africans sold their fellow West Africans into slavery. So do you now collect from West African nations? Or, since black lives here are generally better than there, do you pay them? The wealth of every American today derived from land origonally owned by Indians. After we pay blacks for slavery, do we all give our land back to the Indians?

I could go on and on. I know a lot about history. I love to study it. It's mostly a story of misery, conflict and cruel mistakes. You'd be surprised what sort of things still have an effect today. It's good to learn about these things. But we can't make up for one single second of past misery. We can only fix the present.

If you know history, you should know that Native Americans believed that land owns man and not the other way around.

That doesn't mean they wanted to be forcibly moved, then or now.

How do you give land to a group of people that don't believe in land ownership? I'm sure a modern Native American would take it but the reason they were relocated was because their ancestors didn't lay claim to any ownership of the land they were living on.

Are you serious?

Oh sorry. I thought you indicated that you studied history.

Relocating people from where they live is done because of greater power, not because "they don't believe in land ownership". That's disingenuous.

The colonists and Europeans in general believed in land ownership. The Native Americans were nomadic in nature and didn't believe man could own land. Native Americans migrated and the colonists moved in. No backsies.

That's breathtakingly revisionist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Time to make amends.

You personally are not harmed by things that happened 400 years ago. Systemic racism TODAY does harm you. I think this is an important distinction that the premise of "reparations" obscures.

That's a good point. Are we trying to remedy current problems or are we trying to atone for past wrongdoing? I mean, you can say "both," but at some point the remedy for current problems might be at odds with atoning for past wrongdoing -- you'll have to know whether which priority to favor in that situation.

The sins of the past and the sins of the present have resulted in a significant wealth gap. How would correcting that be at odds with anything?

Of course those two aims can conflict. Even in the hypothetical person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents. Is that person in or out, and why?

How about we limit it to people who are currently dealing with the brunt of 400 years of white supremacy in the US? "residual harm"

And who are those people? Bill Cosby? Michael Jackson's children? A poor white in Appalachia whose family never owned a slave but also couldn't compete with free labor?